Charlie N wrote:
reversing zoom, protrudes at 16mm retracts at 25, at least that's what I caught on the sony video.... not a fan of those types of zooms
Same as the 24-50mm, which I'm already getting used to.
First the 24-50/2.8 G. Now a 16-25/2.8 G. Both very compact and light with high visual quality and with a limited zoom range as the only real trade-off. Both have an excellent minimum focus distance. They very much look like they are intended to go together.
I might think that next will be a 50-105/2.8, or maybe a 45-90/2.8 G, similarly configured.
It looks like Sony may be creating a trinity of small, high quality zooms, perfect for travel, smaller camera bodies, and many other applications. And at a better price point than their GM zooms.
chiron wrote:
First the 24-50/2.8 G. Now a 16-25/2.8 G. Both very compact and light with high visual quality and with a limited zoom range as the only real trade-off. They very much look like they are intended to go together.
I might think that next will be a 50-105/2.8 similarly configured.
It looks like Sony may be creating a trinity of small, high quality zooms, perfect for travel, smaller camera bodies, and many other applications. And at a better price point than their GM zooms.
Brilliant idea!
I think the range is still too little and size savings not enough
Sony is competing with itself, the 16-35pz, the difference between 25 vs 35 is significant, but I can see some photo folks not liking f4 and powerzoom
the 24-50 is competing with the 20-70 which has 4mm on the wide and 20 on the tele
I'm going to give both of the f2.8's a shot, but I dont expect anything revolutionary, especially the 16-25 since there are other similar lenses from third party that already exist with similar range.
Charlie N wrote:
I think the range is still too little and size savings not enough
Sony is competing with itself, the 16-35pz, the difference between 25 vs 35 is significant, but I can see some photo folks not liking f4 and powerzoom
the 24-50 is competing with the 20-70 which has 4mm on the wide and 20 on the tele
I'm going to give both of the f2.8's a shot, but I dont expect anything revolutionary, especially the 16-25 since there are other similar lenses from third party that already exist with similar range.
I like the image quality I have seen on the 24-50/2.8 G better than that of the 20-70/4.0. I bought the latter lens and returned it, though I recognize that its convenience factor is enormous, especially for travel. I also returned the 16-35 PZ because I couldn't stand the power zoom and didn't like f/4.0. But I feel like these new G zooms are made for me. Eleven aperture blades! Close-focusing. Small and light. I almost never shoot over 50mm. I think these lenses will be the choice for image quality for travel, landscapes, walking around, family, etc.
Sony is offering several solutions to similar use cases. You can call it competing with themselves or call it brilliant design and marketing to create specific market segments. They sell the lenses either way, probably more by offering more choices. More choices also makes life more difficult for the competition. If they can do the manufacturing and logistics economically, more power to them -- it is a version of what Amazon does.
So I understand the business decisions involved here. If I was leading Sony lens product management, I would green light these over medium fast telephotos, too. But it would be nice to see them throw us a bone between the 200-600G and the 300GM. Just pick some random Nikon Z prime telephoto lens that is more than $2K and less than $6K, copy the focal length, max aperture, paint it white and add a 10% market-leader premium. Or give us an f/5-f/5.6 200-600GM.
I realize there is a smaller market for these "mid market" telephotos, but I sure would like to see one and suspect Sony could sell a meaningful amount of them. But probably not remotely as much dollar volume as the 16-25, 24-50, 20-70 and 70-200G zoom family. 🤷🏻♂️
Charlie N wrote:
reversing zoom, protrudes at 16mm retracts at 25, at least that's what I caught on the sony video.... not a fan of those types of zooms
I’ll be interested to see a comparison of this lens to the Tamron 17-28/2.8. The Tamron is an excellent lens and is almost exactly the same size as this new lens (it’s 7.6mm longer and 10g heavier which is a very small difference).
Plus, you can buy a used Tamron 17-28/2.8 for half the price of this 16-25.
I haven’t used my Tamron much since getting the 12-24GM, but it is a very sharp and good lens. Again, I’ll be interested to see a comparison.
mudlake wrote:
I’ll be interested to see a comparison of this lens to the Tamron 17-28/2.8. The Tamron is an excellent lens and is almost exactly the same size as this new lens (it’s 7.6mm longer and 10g heavier which is a very small difference).
Plus, you can buy a used Tamron 17-28/2.8 for half the price of this 16-25.
I haven’t used my Tamron much since getting the 12-24GM, but it is a very sharp and good lens. Again, I’ll be interested to see a comparison.
for this reason and a few others, is exactly why I dont see this lens as super inspiring. The sigma 16-28mm f2.8 exists as well, and I get the sony factor exists, a real thing, but it's not overwhelmingly advantageous.
and for some reason, this lens is missing iris lock that the f4 G's have.
mudlake wrote:
I’ll be interested to see a comparison of this lens to the Tamron 17-28/2.8. The Tamron is an excellent lens and is almost exactly the same size as this new lens (it’s 7.6mm longer and 10g heavier which is a very small difference).
Plus, you can buy a used Tamron 17-28/2.8 for half the price of this 16-25.
I haven’t used my Tamron much since getting the 12-24GM, but it is a very sharp and good lens. Again, I’ll be interested to see a comparison.
---------------------------------------------
Charlie N wrote:
for this reason and a few others, is exactly why I dont see this lens as super inspiring. The sigma 16-28mm f2.8 exists as well, and I get the sony factor exists, a real thing, but it's not overwhelmingly advantageous.
and for some reason, this lens is missing iris lock that the f4 G's have.
I think the Tamron will compare well optically. I would guess this new 16-25G is aimed at video where flare isn’t as important, the 25mm is the recessed zoom part and the colors/contrast are similar to the other Sony lenses, with very low focus breathing while the lens is capable of sophisticated use of gyro data (again helps video) and the Sony specs show it mounted on the FX3
I think it will have smoother bokeh than the 17-28. As a still shooter, I doubt there’s a real reason to switch. Very curious to see the distortion and specifically vignetting (how much and how abrupt).
The lens does not make a whole lot of sense to me as part of a 2 zoom lens kit. There is the 35-150, but this is a heavy lens and the 16-25 is about staying lightweight
I suppose the lens needs to be run in a 3 lens kit - 16-25/2.8, 24-50/2.8 and a 70-200
Its probably better to run a 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 instead, which means either less lens changes, or one less camera on your neck.
The 16-35 GMii is 547g and costs $2300, but the Sony FE 24-50mm (440g, $1100) and this 16-25 (408g, $1200) combined is going to run $2300 too, but they weigh more in total (848g). Most people are better off with the 16-35GM imo.
Sony needs to make a lightweight 50-150mm f/2.8 lens to combo with the 16-25 for a 2 lens kit that makes sense.
The 16-35GMii (547g) and 70-200GMii (1045g) are 1.6kg in total.
If a 16-25/2.8 and hypothetical 50-150/2.8 could weigh in at 1kg and at half the total price it could be interesting, but this means that the 50-150/2.8 needs to be ~600g.
I suppose this combo: 16-25/2.8 and 50/1.4GM could be pretty decent.
I’m glad to see Sony continuing to frustrate some photographers by releasing small, high-quality, lenses that work well with their A7C-series bodies. 😁 I would not buy the GM version because of price and size/weight, and I would choose this over 3rd party versions because of the aperture ring…assuming image quality holds up, which I assume it will.
